4 ms·

Musk is massively disingenuous and rather insulting to our intelligence. But he's a heck of a salesman and makes a wonderful car. Like many persuasive people he

Musk is massively disingenuous and rather insulting to our intelligence. But he's a heck of a salesman and makes a wonderful car. Like many persuasive people he arrives at an answer and backs into rationale but makes it appear the other way around. I'll give you just one example. The law of the land in NJ is that you can't sell in NJ unless through a dealership. That's the current law. Those laws need to change to allow a direct to consumer sale. Map that to this quote "ended your right to purchase vehicles at a manufacturer store within the state." Brilliant. "You lost something you had" is so much more powerful than "We need to persuade the legislator to make a change to add something new" Seriously, I dig his cars. And his vision. And I suspect that to attack such large entrenched markets you have to have this kind of maniacal drive. I just hate being misled and manipulated - no matter who the person.

seizethecheese 13y ago
This comment exemplifies why I come to Hacker News. The ability to be for a cause, yet still call out any bullshit is unfortunately quite rare.
- grifpete 13y ago
  It seems it was the calling out that was bullshit. :)
  - tzs 13y ago
    No, it was not. The law, which has been on the books for a long time in New Jersey, prohibited direct sales. It was possible to read part of the law as being written in a way that would not apply to Tesla, but would apply to nearly all other current makers. (I mentioned this in a Reddit discussion, and someone pointed out that another part of New Jersey law made it so that reading was clearly not correct, and the law prohibiting other makers from selling direct did pretty clearly cover Tesla). The new rule is basically clarifying that yes, the current law does indeed also apply to Tesla, and anyone who issued any permits or otherwise had approved Tesla's sales was in error.
revelation 13y ago
I think you missed the part where they instituted new rules effective starting in April, which is when the existing Tesla stores will be reduced to galleries. In your vigor, you seem to have misled only yourself.
- jusben1369 13y ago
  See above or below.
- greglindahl 13y ago
  Tesla stores are already galleries (with a small repair facility). Purchases are made over the Internet.
thedufer 13y ago
They're currently selling Teslas in NJ (without a middleman) and not having any legal problems because of it, so your example's premise seems to be flawed.
- jusben1369 13y ago
  You have to dig deeper on the story than his post. They've been told for a long time that the license shouldn't have been issued and would be revoked and that a change in legislation was needed. Again, Musk knows all this. But it doesn't fit the dialogue.
  - doppel 13y ago
    Still, they do actually have the option now and they are losing it in the future. If the prospect was that they were going to keep being able to buy directly from Tesla, and that this was foiled by a backroom-deal (to put it in his words), then he is technically correct. I can understand what you mean, but to the end consumer they are going from being able to buy a Tesla directly to not being able to.
  - nawitus 13y ago
    >They've been told for a long time that the license shouldn't have been issued and would be revoked and that a change in legislation was needed. Shouldn't have been issued according to who? According to law, it should've been issued, otherwise you don't need a law change to revoke it.
  - jccooper 13y ago
    Apparently what Tesla was initially told when NJ "discovered" a problem with their not-entirely-clear dealership law was that they would allow Tesla to keep selling until the legislature had a chance to clarify the issue. Recently they were told differently: that the executive has made the decision, and they're shut down. Not much wonder that Elon's unhappy with the situation. Nobody likes the rug removed from under their feet. Plus it feels like (and probably is) inside ball when something like that happens.
darkarmani 13y ago
> The law of the land in NJ is that you can't sell in NJ unless through a dealership. That's the current law. Are you suggesting that Tesla is actively breaking the law in NJ right now? The rule change doesn't take place until April 1st, which is why they have to close their store by then. If they aren't operating illegally right now, then the commission has ended our ability to purchase these cars. Secondly, if you can only sell through a dealership, why can't Tesla just own some dealerships?
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Are you suggesting that Tesla is actively breaking the law in NJ right now? That's how a lot of government rule-making works. The law says something general and the specifics are left to departments and commissions. In this case, it's not clear that this particular rule is outside the plain meaning of the law; they just hadn't gotten to writing it before because Tesla presents a novel circumstance. Of course, it's difficult to hold somebody accountable for breaking a rule that hadn't been written yet, so "actively breaking the law" is probably overstating it. Secondly, if you can only sell through a dealership, why can't Tesla just own some dealerships? I am not an expert, but I imagine the law was written in such a way that "franchise" is defined as an entity independent of any manufacturer.
jusben1369 13y ago
Here's another view worth reading: http://mashable.com/2014/03/12/new-jersey-tesla-dealers/ http://mashable.com/2014/03/12/new-jersey-tesla-dealers/
- jessriedel 13y ago
  I really appreciate you being one of the lone voices here who doesn't just want to heap praise on Musk, and I definitely appreciate a link to a story that isn't one sided. But I have to say that it's not so simple as "Tesla was violating a law that is now going to be enforced", and that therefore the state isn't changing anything and therefore Musk is disingenuous. Unfortunately, these sorts of laws are often vague and confusing, and boil down a lot to the state's (sometime capricious) choices about what to enforce and how. The governor's ability to direct the state's executive branch is widely and correctly seen as a huge power. So the law is vague and requires the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission to fill in the detail. In fact, the NJMVC itself granted a permit to Tesla to sell cars in the state (as stated in your article). But now the NJMVC has reviewed that decision at a higher level and has decided it made a mistake http://mashable.com/2014/03/11/tesla-new-jersey/ http://mashable.com/2014/03/11/tesla-new-jersey/ If permits are being revoked, that sounds like a change to me. You can say that a proper interpretation of the law would have always led to that outcome, and that Tesla doesn't have a right to complain that the law is finally being enforced correctly. But that presupposes that laws have unambiguous pre-existing interpretations. Although the text of the state code isn't changing, it seems clear to me that "the law"--as in the actual regulatory environment experienced by Tesla--is changing in a negative, albeit somewhat predictable manner. Was Musk glib in describing this in his letter? Sure. But I don't think it rises to the point of being disingenuous.
larrys 13y ago
"Musk is massively disingenuous and rather insulting to our intelligence. But he's a heck of a salesman " Agree. And makes you wonder a bit about the marketing materials surrounding these cars, huh? He's trying to make as if he's acting in the best interest of the people of the state of NJ. When it is very clear that his motivation is his own interests and selling his car. And making more money for himself. Most businesses don't make it that obvious. Another word I will use is immature. His argument sounds like a spoiled kid who doesn't get what he wants and is going to call out the teacher at school hoping to berate them into just caving in. [1] Real life doesn't work that way. Not to mention the fact that there simply aren't enough people in NJ [2] that care about buying a Tesla to protest and make change on this. [1] "Hey great argument no I don't mind if you insulted me because you are right!". [2] Guess what? In Pennsylvania there are many more people that don't want to buy liquor at state stores (which they have to) and that hasn't changed yet.
- skore 13y ago
  > When it is very clear that his motivation is his own interests and selling his car. And making more money for himself. Most businesses don't make it that obvious. You cannot possibly be saying that with a straight face. Pretty sure Musk has the high road rather solidly booked all to himself when it comes to his credibility concerning trying to change things for the better when you compare him to any other auto corp.
- Goronmon 13y ago
  He's trying to make as if he's acting in the best interest of the people of the state of NJ. When it is very clear that his motivation is his own interests and selling his car. I don't see how these goals are mutually exclusive. And saying that he wants to sell his car is falling into the realm of ridiculously obvious. Most businesses don't make it that obvious. Really? Most business make merely a token effort at pretending every action they take isn't just about the bottom line. I don't see how pandering to customers makes one business any 'better' than another.
- haberman 13y ago
  What is amazing to me about your comment is that you have harsh words for Musk without any defense whatsoever of why the law is just. What is "immature" about calling out a stupid and corrupt law?
TheMagicHorsey 13y ago
Misled? There is a bullshit law on the books he wants repealed. I have no idea where you came up with this line of thought.
sp332 13y ago
It was lost, when the auto dealer franchise laws were put into place along time ago.
manmountain 13y ago
Nice try, New Jersey auto salesman. Seriously, how can you be on the "we've got to enforce current law" side? It's so ridiculously anti free market that I'm sure all the Tea Partiers are having cognitive dissonance over this.
- jusben1369 13y ago
  Hah! I'm objecting to Musk misleading us. And he is misleading us. Look at many of these comments and you'll see why. Grab the pitchforks and head to NJ!!

seizethecheese 13y ago

This comment exemplifies why I come to Hacker News. The ability to be for a cause, yet still call out any bullshit is unfortunately quite rare.

grifpete 13y ago
It seems it was the calling out that was bullshit. :)
- tzs 13y ago
  No, it was not. The law, which has been on the books for a long time in New Jersey, prohibited direct sales. It was possible to read part of the law as being written in a way that would not apply to Tesla, but would apply to nearly all other current makers. (I mentioned this in a Reddit discussion, and someone pointed out that another part of New Jersey law made it so that reading was clearly not correct, and the law prohibiting other makers from selling direct did pretty clearly cover Tesla). The new rule is basically clarifying that yes, the current law does indeed also apply to Tesla, and anyone who issued any permits or otherwise had approved Tesla's sales was in error.

revelation 13y ago

I think you missed the part where they instituted new rules effective starting in April, which is when the existing Tesla stores will be reduced to galleries. In your vigor, you seem to have misled only yourself.

jusben1369 13y ago
See above or below.
greglindahl 13y ago
Tesla stores are already galleries (with a small repair facility). Purchases are made over the Internet.

thedufer 13y ago

They're currently selling Teslas in NJ (without a middleman) and not having any legal problems because of it, so your example's premise seems to be flawed.

jusben1369 13y ago
You have to dig deeper on the story than his post. They've been told for a long time that the license shouldn't have been issued and would be revoked and that a change in legislation was needed. Again, Musk knows all this. But it doesn't fit the dialogue.
- doppel 13y ago
  Still, they do actually have the option now and they are losing it in the future. If the prospect was that they were going to keep being able to buy directly from Tesla, and that this was foiled by a backroom-deal (to put it in his words), then he is technically correct. I can understand what you mean, but to the end consumer they are going from being able to buy a Tesla directly to not being able to.
- nawitus 13y ago
  >They've been told for a long time that the license shouldn't have been issued and would be revoked and that a change in legislation was needed. Shouldn't have been issued according to who? According to law, it should've been issued, otherwise you don't need a law change to revoke it.
- jccooper 13y ago
  Apparently what Tesla was initially told when NJ "discovered" a problem with their not-entirely-clear dealership law was that they would allow Tesla to keep selling until the legislature had a chance to clarify the issue. Recently they were told differently: that the executive has made the decision, and they're shut down. Not much wonder that Elon's unhappy with the situation. Nobody likes the rug removed from under their feet. Plus it feels like (and probably is) inside ball when something like that happens.

darkarmani 13y ago

> The law of the land in NJ is that you can't sell in NJ unless through a dealership. That's the current law. Are you suggesting that Tesla is actively breaking the law in NJ right now? The rule change doesn't take place until April 1st, which is why they have to close their store by then. If they aren't operating illegally right now, then the commission has ended our ability to purchase these cars. Secondly, if you can only sell through a dealership, why can't Tesla just own some dealerships?

twoodfin 13y ago
Are you suggesting that Tesla is actively breaking the law in NJ right now? That's how a lot of government rule-making works. The law says something general and the specifics are left to departments and commissions. In this case, it's not clear that this particular rule is outside the plain meaning of the law; they just hadn't gotten to writing it before because Tesla presents a novel circumstance. Of course, it's difficult to hold somebody accountable for breaking a rule that hadn't been written yet, so "actively breaking the law" is probably overstating it. Secondly, if you can only sell through a dealership, why can't Tesla just own some dealerships? I am not an expert, but I imagine the law was written in such a way that "franchise" is defined as an entity independent of any manufacturer.

jusben1369 13y ago

Here's another view worth reading: http://mashable.com/2014/03/12/new-jersey-tesla-dealers/ http://mashable.com/2014/03/12/new-jersey-tesla-dealers/

jessriedel 13y ago
I really appreciate you being one of the lone voices here who doesn't just want to heap praise on Musk, and I definitely appreciate a link to a story that isn't one sided. But I have to say that it's not so simple as "Tesla was violating a law that is now going to be enforced", and that therefore the state isn't changing anything and therefore Musk is disingenuous. Unfortunately, these sorts of laws are often vague and confusing, and boil down a lot to the state's (sometime capricious) choices about what to enforce and how. The governor's ability to direct the state's executive branch is widely and correctly seen as a huge power. So the law is vague and requires the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission to fill in the detail. In fact, the NJMVC itself granted a permit to Tesla to sell cars in the state (as stated in your article). But now the NJMVC has reviewed that decision at a higher level and has decided it made a mistake http://mashable.com/2014/03/11/tesla-new-jersey/ http://mashable.com/2014/03/11/tesla-new-jersey/ If permits are being revoked, that sounds like a change to me. You can say that a proper interpretation of the law would have always led to that outcome, and that Tesla doesn't have a right to complain that the law is finally being enforced correctly. But that presupposes that laws have unambiguous pre-existing interpretations. Although the text of the state code isn't changing, it seems clear to me that "the law"--as in the actual regulatory environment experienced by Tesla--is changing in a negative, albeit somewhat predictable manner. Was Musk glib in describing this in his letter? Sure. But I don't think it rises to the point of being disingenuous.

larrys 13y ago

"Musk is massively disingenuous and rather insulting to our intelligence. But he's a heck of a salesman " Agree. And makes you wonder a bit about the marketing materials surrounding these cars, huh? He's trying to make as if he's acting in the best interest of the people of the state of NJ. When it is very clear that his motivation is his own interests and selling his car. And making more money for himself. Most businesses don't make it that obvious. Another word I will use is immature. His argument sounds like a spoiled kid who doesn't get what he wants and is going to call out the teacher at school hoping to berate them into just caving in. [1] Real life doesn't work that way. Not to mention the fact that there simply aren't enough people in NJ [2] that care about buying a Tesla to protest and make change on this. [1] "Hey great argument no I don't mind if you insulted me because you are right!". [2] Guess what? In Pennsylvania there are many more people that don't want to buy liquor at state stores (which they have to) and that hasn't changed yet.

skore 13y ago
> When it is very clear that his motivation is his own interests and selling his car. And making more money for himself. Most businesses don't make it that obvious. You cannot possibly be saying that with a straight face. Pretty sure Musk has the high road rather solidly booked all to himself when it comes to his credibility concerning trying to change things for the better when you compare him to any other auto corp.
Goronmon 13y ago
He's trying to make as if he's acting in the best interest of the people of the state of NJ. When it is very clear that his motivation is his own interests and selling his car. I don't see how these goals are mutually exclusive. And saying that he wants to sell his car is falling into the realm of ridiculously obvious. Most businesses don't make it that obvious. Really? Most business make merely a token effort at pretending every action they take isn't just about the bottom line. I don't see how pandering to customers makes one business any 'better' than another.
haberman 13y ago
What is amazing to me about your comment is that you have harsh words for Musk without any defense whatsoever of why the law is just. What is "immature" about calling out a stupid and corrupt law?

TheMagicHorsey 13y ago

Misled? There is a bullshit law on the books he wants repealed. I have no idea where you came up with this line of thought.

sp332 13y ago

It was lost, when the auto dealer franchise laws were put into place along time ago.

manmountain 13y ago

Nice try, New Jersey auto salesman. Seriously, how can you be on the "we've got to enforce current law" side? It's so ridiculously anti free market that I'm sure all the Tea Partiers are having cognitive dissonance over this.

jusben1369 13y ago
Hah! I'm objecting to Musk misleading us. And he is misleading us. Look at many of these comments and you'll see why. Grab the pitchforks and head to NJ!!